Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Monday, June 30, 2014

(CNSNews.com) – Dismissing Republican criticism of Hillary Clinton over the Benghazi terrorist attack, President Clinton referred to ten occasions during the Bush administration when U.S. diplomatic personnel had been killed, and asked where the GOP anger had been then.

“When ten different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed in, in – around the world, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there?” Clinton asked during NBC Meet the Press interview on Sunday.

“Zero,” he added.

Unstated by the former president, however, was the fact that those U.S. diplomatic personnel who were killed during the George W. Bush administration died in circumstances other than an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission:

--Barbara Green, an employee at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, was killed in a 2002 hand grenade attack on a church in the Pakistani capital. Four other people were killed in the attack, including Green’s daughter.

--USAID officer Laurence Foley was shot dead outside his home in Amman, Jordan, in 2002.

--Bureau of Diplomatic Security officer Edward Seitz was killed in a 2004 mortar attack on a U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport.

--Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s consultant to Iraq’s education ministry, was shot dead while driving in Baghdad in 2004.

--David Foy, facilities maintenance officer at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi was targeted and killed in a 2006 suicide bomb attack in his car near the consulate in Pakistan’s biggest city. His driver was also killed.

--USAID official John Granville was shot dead in his car while returning from a New Year’s Eve party at the British Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, in 2008.

On Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed when heavily-armed terrorists assaulted the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Before that attack, no American ambassador had been killed in the line of duty since 1979, when Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was killed in a shootout after being abducted.

U.S. diplomatic missions around the world did come under attack a number of times during the Bush years, but those attacks killed foreigners, and in some cases American civilians – not serving U.S. diplomatic personnel:

--Jan. 2002: Gunmen killed four policeman and a security guard at the American Center, an information facility near the U.S. Consulate, Kolkata, India.

--Mar. 2002: Nine people, no Americans among them, were killed in a bombing, carried out by suspected Maoists, at the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru.

--Jun. 2002: Twelve Pakistanis were killed in a suicide bombing at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi.

--Feb. 2003: Two police officers were killed in a gun attack on the U.S. Consulate in Karachi.

(--May 2003: Nine American civilians were among more than 30 people killed in a major al-Qaeda assault on privately owned diplomatic compounds – not a U.S. diplomatic facility – in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.)

--Jul. 2004: Two Uzbek security guards were killed when a suicide bomber attacked the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

--Dec. 2004: Five Saudi personnel were killed in an al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

--Sept. 2006: Four people, none of them Americans, were killed in an armed assault by four gunmen on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria.

--Jan. 2007: No fatalities were reported when the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece, was targeted by a rocket-propelled grenade.

--Mar. 2008: Terrorists fired mortars at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen. They missed the embassy but hit a nearby school, killing a guard and a pupil.

--Jul. 2008: Three Turkish policemen were killed when terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul.

--Sept. 2008: Four civilians, including an American, and six Yemeni policemen were killed when terrorists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a.

--Nov. 2008: Four Afghan civilians were killed in a Taliban suicide bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.

After the Benghazi attack, the administration came under fire from Republican lawmakers and others over security decisions made in the run-up to the attack, and over its response afterwards. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time.

Criticism focused on the administration’s early assertions that the assault had been a spontaneous reaction to an obscure online video mocking Mohammed, rather than a planned terrorist attack – a stance some regarded as politically-motivated during the latter stages of President Obama’s re-election campaign.

In the interview aired Sunday, President Clinton dismissed an earlier suggestion – by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) – that his wife’s handling of Benghazi disqualified her from running for president. “That’s not a serious comment,” he said.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

In electoral politics, familiarity often breeds comfort. The more recognizable a politician is the more likely that politician can expect to enjoy a certain level of support from among his or her constituency. But when familiarity descends into overexposure it can constitute the tipping point upon which a politician’s appeal begins to wane.

This appears to be the conundrum facing Hillary Clinton in her build up to the 2016 presidential campaign season. Her noncommittal demeanor toward 2016 notwithstanding, there is not a pundit or voter from California to Maine that doesn’t fully expect the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State to aggressively pursue the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

But the tepid response Mrs. Clinton has received to some of her more recent attempts to generate publicity and support points to a public less inspired by thesui generis of her candidacy and instead growing tired of the omnipresent and clichéd Clinton dynasty.

The release of Mrs. Clinton’s much ballyhooed autobiography, Hard Choices, was expected to generate not only tremendous sales but also initiate a favorable public discourse highlighting her own, self perceived personal and political accomplishments.

Instead, a preview and promotion of the book caused a backlash among her critics, much of which was centered around her almost dogmatic adherence to a dubious YouTube video as the genesis of the attacks in Benghazi and her near laughable cries of poverty upon leaving the White House.

As the Washington Post noted, “So, yes, it is technically true the Clintons left office in debt. But, a year later, the couple's assets had soared.” Whatever debt the Clintons incurred while occupying the White House was quickly surmounted by the tremendous earning capacity of the former President and First Lady.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton was still receiving upwards of $200,000 per speech given after having left the State Department last year. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s notions of poverty and destitution are quite different than that of the average American.

Initial sales of her autobiography hasn’t demonstrated great interest among the public either. It was reported that only 60,000 hardcopies and 24,000 e-copies of Hard Choices were sold in the first week; a respectable number for the average author but far less than expected from a personage like Clinton (sources indicate that the publisher, Simon and Shuster, had hoped for first week sales closer to 150,000).

In another sign that the public has become weary of the Clinton political machine, a much hyped cable news interview featuring Mrs. Clinton failed to generate the level of viewership no doubt expected by Clinton and her supporters.

Clinton’s town-hall style interview with Christiane Amanpour, which aired this past Tuesday night on CNN, not only failed to win its time slot (placing a distant second to Fox’s The Five) but her numbers within the key 25-54 demographic (115k viewers) barely edged out the pitiable Ed Show on MSNBC (105k viewers).

When your highly promoted cable news interview on CNN barely squeaks past MSNBC you know you might have a problem.

All signs point to Clinton-fatigue having set in among the general public and it can be reasonably assumed that the same level of fatigue may ultimately affect voters at the ballot box as well. This more than any singular issue -and there are many- should concern Hillary Clinton.

The public is demonstrating through its lack of interest in Mrs. Clinton that her ascension to the Democratic nomination, or the Oval Office, is not a fait accompli. Twenty-plus years of near constant exposure has perhaps taken some of the sheen off of the Clinton mystique. Nobody is immune to overexposure, not even Hillary Clinton.http://townhall.com/columnists/scotterickson/2014/06/21/clinton-candidacy-imperiled-by-overexposure-n1853407?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Friday, June 20, 2014

We all know the old saying: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” I hope we all know its meaning; that despite our best efforts and intentions, most of us grow up to morph into our parents. We develop similar habits, similar traits.

It’s also true that a good kid is usually a reflection of good parents and a bad kid is the result of bad parenting. Apparently this is true of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary’s much anticipated (tongue in cheek) memoir is being released in a few weeks. In it she paints quite a rosy picture of her dear sainted mother, Dorothy Rodham.

This is a bit strange and at odds with what author Jerry Oppenheimer wrote of mama Rodham in his Clinton biography more than 10 years ago.

Oppenheimer learned of Hillary’s rewrite of history from an excerpt of Hillary’s memoir recently published in Vogue magazine.

He granted an interview with MailOnline where he told them that according to his research this was not the same Dorothy Rodham he documented in the biography. “It just isn’t a true picture of a woman who, like most everyone, also had a dark side, which emerged in interviews with family members who knew her well.”

Witnesses told Oppenheimer that Dorothy Rodham would often say, “Oh, those damn Jews are so cheap” and “That Jew has to watch every dime.” It’s odd that Dorothy Rodham’s father was Jewish and her own mother often called her husband a “cheap Jew bastard.” Wow – nice family!

Now, we’ve all known people that don’t seem to be happy unless they’re miserable – always angry about something.

Well, according to Oppenheimer – that is Hillary’s mother. One of Dorothy Rodham’s nephews told Oppenheimer, “It seems like she [Dorothy] can’t get along in life and why she’s really pissed at someone.”

Hillary’s cousin Oscar Dowdy says, “Hillary is Dorothy’s daughter. It’s unfortunate. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. To me, Hillary and Dorothy have a lot of likenesses.”

And we have been witness to this from her treatment of Israel, as Secretary of State, to her often reported “hot temper” behind closed doors in the White House, to her obstinate arrogance directed at Congress during the Benghazi hearings.

Dowdy added: “I don’t think they take anybody’s feelings into consideration. What’s good for them is good – nothing else matters.”

And this is what we want in our next president, another angry, self-centered, megalomaniacal leftist? A president who cares only about herself, not the country? A president who cares only about her progressive legacy? As we’ve seen in Obama, this is not a recipe for success. Although, if the measure of success is to tear the country down and rebuild it in one’s image, I guess you could say this is a success.

In my opinion, one Obama in a lifetime is more than enough.

And as awful as Obama is, Hillary, I fear, would likely be even worse, if that’s possible.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15615/dark-family-tree-hillary-clinton/#gYGS5o1aLzg5oRv8.99

The special House committee probing the fatal Benghazi attacks has yet to announce whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be subpoenaed to testify, but the investigation nevertheless looms like a storm cloud over her potential 2016 presidential candidacy.

Those running the committee are taking their time hiring investigators and staff. A source familiar with the committee told Fox News that public meetings and witness depositions are not expected to start until September.

The schedule, it seems, threatens to leak into the unofficial -- and increasingly early -- start of the presidential campaign season. And it could undermine the launch of any budding Clinton campaign by dragging the former secretary back before Congress for a public grilling.

"It’s going to become an increasing distraction for Clinton’s pseudo-campaign for the presidency,” Republican strategist David Payne said.

Clinton already has testified on the issue before Congress, which has held at least 10 related hearings. But congressional Republicans and others continue to seek answers about what Clinton and other high-level administration officials knew about the fatal attack on four Americans, compared to what they told the public.

Payne doesn’t expect Clinton to reveal new or damaging information about her role as secretary of State during the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

“But every day she spends on Capitol Hill talking about the tragedy is a day she’s not selling her latest book and convincing Democratic voters that she would be a great candidate in the 2016 primary,” said Payne, a vice president at D.C.-based Vox Digital.

The administration enjoyed a burst of positive news this week following the capture of Benghazi suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala. But Clinton herself says there are unanswered questions, and raised more by telling Fox News this week that she supported the administration’s initial explanation that the attacks were sparked by an anti-Islam film, despite having personal doubts.

The GOP-led Benghazi Select Committee offered no information this week on a witness list, whether Clinton would be subpoenaed or a hearing schedule.

However, a spokesperson for committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said that the seven-Republican, five-Democrat committee will “talk to all material witnesses as many times as necessary to discover all relevant facts and answers.”

The GOP-led House voted last month in favor of forming the committee, in large part after the discovery on an email from White House official Ben Rhodes that said then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice should use TV interviews to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Congressional Democrats argue the formation of the committee and the possibility that Clinton will be forced to testify is an election-year stunt to hammer her and fellow Democrats running in 2014.

“The only thing I see going on with the Benghazi, so-called investigation is my Republican colleagues using this issue to raise campaign dollars,” California Rep. Xavier Becerra, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told C-SPAN on Sunday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the select committee, has called the upcoming hearings a GOP-led “witch hunt” intended to damage Clinton, whom he thinks will be his party’s 2016 presidential nominee.

He described a preliminary meeting in which the Republicans’ talking points supposedly were “Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton.”

“It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out,” he said during a recent interview on “Fine Print,” a joint ABC-Yahoo News project.

Cummings, a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has held several hearings on Benghazi, nevertheless insists his role includes making sure every witness is treated fairly -- Democrat or Republican.

The Gowdy spokesperson told FoxNews.com that witnesses will be handled “in a manner consistent with fair practice and respectful of [their] other responsibilities.”

Congress has held at least 10 hearings on the circumstances surrounding the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, as well as State Department official Sean Smith and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The State Department has conducted its own probe, known as the Accountability Review Board.

Clinton testified on the issue before House and Senate committees in January 2013.

Her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is perhaps most noted for her response to questions about why the American public had to wait for several days to learn what likely sparked the fatal attacks.

“What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton said. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

Among the other key details regarding the committee is who will be hired or appointed as staff.

Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has already picked as majority staff director Phil Kiko, a K Street government affairs specialist with Capitol Hill experience, with more hirings expected to follow.

Kansas GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo, a West Point graduate on the select committee, recently told Fox News the first order of business for members is to compile a detailed timeline of the attacks.

"We still don't have all of the facts that surrounded the events of that night,” he said. “Did the Department of Defense speak to the State Department? Did the State Department have good contacts with our intelligence operations folks? Where was the White House and its National Security staff, that entire team that's responsible?"

"I took responsibility for being at the head of the State Department at [the time of the Benghazi attack]. Now that doesn't mean that I made every decision, because I obviously did not. But it means that I feel very deeply and personally about the losses [of four Americans' lives]." Clinton responded.

"It also means that, as a leader, I have a responsibility to find out what happened [and make changes to] prevent that from happening again," she continued.

"There is a difference between 'getting it wrong' and 'committing wrong'," Clinton said when asked about accountability in Washington for the events in Libya, adding that "existing American law" reportedly prohibits holding somebody "accountable for a mistake".

She said that she has asked Congress to give leaders in her position the authority to be able to hold accountable those deemed so in the future.

The woman at the center of the scandal over Hillary Clinton’s defense of an alleged child rapist speaks out in depth for the first time.

Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.

The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beaconand made public this week.

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.

The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.

“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton agreed to defend after being asked by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.

“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”

The victim’s second main grievance with Clinton stems from the newly revealed audio recordings, which were taped in a series of interviews of Clinton with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, who was researching an article on the Clintons that was ultimately never published. The Free Beaconfound the tapes archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, amidst thousands of pieces of Clinton history that are being periodically released for public consumption.

On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

She then describes how she discovered that investigators had cut out and lost a section of the suspect’s underwear that they said contained the victim’s blood. Clinton brought the remaining underwear segment to a Nobel Prize-winning blood expert in Brooklyn, NY, she explained, in order to convince him to lend his heavyweight reputation and influence to her defense case.

“And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was, if you get him interested in the case, then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” Clinton said.

Clinton told the judge that the famous expert was willing to testify. Instead of the original charge of first-degree rape, the prosecutors let Taylor plead to a lesser charge: unlawful fondling of a child. According to the Free Beacon, Taylor was sentenced to one year behind bars, with two months reduced for time served.The second attacker was never charged.

“Oh, he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months,” Clinton said on the recording, apparently not remembering the sentence accurately.

For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said.

“It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” she said. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”

The office of Hillary Clinton did not respond to a request for comment. In a 2008 article in Newsdaywritten by Glenn Thrush, now at Politico, Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson defended her conduct in the case.

“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”

In that book, Clinton gave vague details about her actions in the case and said that shortly thereafter, she helped set up Arkansas’s first rape hotline.

According to Thrush’s article, the victim didn’t fault Clinton for her defense of the attacker during their 2008 interview, which took place in the prison where the victim was serving time for drug-related offenses, in the presence of the warden. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job,” he quoted the victim as saying. After all, everyone has a right to be defended in court. And 1975 was a lifetime ago.

But the victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.

“If I had known that day what I know now I would have told him exactly what I’m telling y’all today,” she said.

After she was released from prison in 2008, the victim read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.

“I started seeing where I had really been stomped in the ground. I didn’t really know what to do about it. I just figured life would have to go on and I would have to live with it,” she said.

But after hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”

In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.

The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested. But that wasn’t the end of her ordeal.

She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance.

“I’m living life in Arkansas, I go to Church sometimes, and I’m doing good… Being on disability I don’t get much income but I’m happy where I’m at. I’m doing really well,” she said. “[Clinton] owes me a big apology, [but] I’ll probably never get anything from her.”

The victim doesn’t remember ever meeting Clinton in 1975; she says her memories from that ordeal are spotty. But she does recall feeling exasperated by the law enforcement and legal proceedings to the point where she told her mother she just wanted it to be over so she could try to resume her childhood.

“I had been through so much stuff I finally told them to do whatever,” she remembered. “They had scared me so bad that I was tired of being put through it all. I finally said I was done… I thought they had both gotten long-term sentences, I didn’t realize they got off with hardly nothing.”

Whether or not Clinton was just doing her duty as a defense lawyer, for the victim, Clinton’s behavior speaks to her character, her ambition, and her suitability to be a role model for women or president of the United States.

“I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don’t think she’s a role model at all… If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys,” she said. “She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she’s at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? No. She’s going to be telling lies out there, what the world wants to hear.”

The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks, but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent.

“I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not,” she said. “They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Hillary Clinton, the unindicted Benghazi co-conspirator who wants to be our next president, previewed on CNN the bent liberal logic that would be the hallmark of her Administration should America suffer another brain aneurysm and elect her.

During the CNN Townhall event Monday, Clinton was asked by an audience member about her feelings on gun control issues like large-capacity magazines, and Clinton took the opportunity to vent her spleen against Americans who dare to support gun rights.

I’m well aware that this is a hot political subject," she said. "And again, I will speak out no matter what role I find myself in But I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation. We cannot let a minority of people – and it’s, that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."

Liberal political statements often reflect an addled state of mind, and Clinton's is no exception. A little close analysis is revealing.

"I’m well aware that this is a hot political subject. And again, I will speak out no matter what role I find myself in. ..." This is just self-aggrandizement. She's setting up the idea in her listeners' minds that the topic is the equivalent of stepping on a land mine, but she's going to do it for our sake because that's the kind of brave leader she is. The reality, of course, is that the topic wouldn't be controversial if liberals wouldn't have such screaming hissy fits about guns and would just talk to conservatives like human beings talking to other human beings. It doesn't take any courage for a liberal to talk about gun control. It's part of the basic package liberals expect in their politicians.

"But I believe we need a more thoughtful conversation. ..." This isn't supposed to be a joke, but it sounds like one. The implication is that only Clinton, and by extension liberals in general, are capable of having a thoughtful conversation, which is exactly what Hillary supporters and most liberals believe. It's "those other people" who are crazy, stupid, unreasonable, etc. This sets up the next sentence where you get the real point of her blather.

"We cannot let a minority of people – and it’s, that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people." We "reasonable people" can't allow the whacked-out minority (that's conservatives and anyone else who supports the Second Amendment) disagree with "the majority" (that's the "We"). Typical liberal intellectual snobbery. But look more closely at what can't be allowed -- "hold(ing) a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority ('We')."

I've always maintained that most actions of liberals have their root in fear. Anyone has fears, but liberals don't deal with their fears internally. Instead, they project and try to change their external world. Hence gun control, "diversity" training, zero tolerance policies, raising taxes to pay for the "right" services, weakening the military to prevent war, etc.

What Clinton is calling for is, literally, thought control. She's not the only liberal to do it; in fact, it's pretty common. There's no room for wrong thinking in Libtopia.

It sounds like science fiction, but it's apparently been used successfully on mice and is moving toward reality for humans. The excuse is that such a device would be useful in treating post-traumatic stress disorder by simply deleting unpleasant memories.

This all gets into the Transhuman movement and other issues, but the ultimate goal is straightforward: programmable humans.

It's a liberal dream come true, and it naturally lends itself to liberalism, which depends on ignorance and even fear of history, religion, tradition -- things that could be deleted. Conservatism, on the other hand, is based on a respect and love for those things, emotions and knowledge that have to be learned.

"We cannot allow" is Clinton's mantra these days. We cannot allow freedom, we cannot allow questions about Benghazi, we cannot allow any deep thoughts at all. Yes, a brain-erasing chip would be the perfect campaign handout.

What we really cannot allow is President Hillary.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15962/hillary-cant-allow-people-hold-wrong-opinion-guns/#808qB2VPPZPpxPuo.99

Indeed 'what difference does it make' KABOOM!, More people need to keep her accountable.

Jason Mattera caught up with Hillary Clinton at one of the DC stops on her book tour this week, and asked the former Secretary of State if she would mind signing a copy of Hard Choices… but with a twist. “If you could make it out to Christopher Stevens,” Mattera queried. “I think you knew him.”

Christopher Stevens, of course, was the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was murdered along with three other Americans on Clinton’s watch, when Jihadists attacked two U.S. outposts in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Hillary, surprised by the request, replied, “Yeah, I’m not gonna make it out to Chris Stevens.” Mattera followed-up with, “What difference does it make?” a reference to Clinton’s infamous 2013 Senate testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mattera, the publisher of Daily Surge, also noted during their exchange that Hillary’s security detail appears to be larger than what Ambassador Stevens was provided in Benghazi. Clinton’s entourage filled up a town car, two SUVs, and consisted of security personnel from the building she had just exited.

Recently, Diane Sawyer pressed Hillary on the “systemic” security failures at the American consulate in Libya, where both Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith died. Clinton gave a rather Clintonian answer: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.”

Watch the video of Mattera and Clinton above.

Read more at http://dailysurge.com/2014/06/hillary-clinton-asked-inscribe-hard-choices-ambassador-stevens/#byJj5j1ALlkHQTlz.99